Hello All:
Another two cents worth to follow.
It’s hard not to agree with most of your observations Ed, or appreciate your
qualified and well-justified ire, but in my opinion it is a bit righteous to
declare the topic “off-limits” in the RFI forum. I refer to your conclusion:
> this is an email list about RFI, and that continuing this discussion should
> not continue here.
of what seems to be declaration of sorts, which I view as an opinion offered
earnestly, appreciated as same, but offered without authority.
Just an observation.
Having said that, I think we are fortunate to have ANY forum in which our
insights and observations can be aired, and even more fortunate to be able to
disagree civilly with one another.
As I crank on, you’ll find somehow I changed the font. I haven’t a clue how to
fix it, and am one of those guys who need the kids (now the grandkids) home at
Christmas time to reprogram the VCR. (Sorry about the font change.)
But my opinions continue below. (You know where your “delete” button lurks when
you’ve had enough.)
Re ARRL, in my limited opinion, as an observer since 1956, initially as
KN1CJO, now approaching the final chapters of Hamdom as AG6CX, peer review of
technical articles in Newington went out the window when the lab staff was
trimmed years ago.
So much for checking technical articles or by building the topic of the article
with any hope of so one else having done it first! (My last effort was the QST
article by Measures on his Balanced-Balanced Tuner, laden with controversy,
comment, but I can say it works like a charm.)
As an example if the ARRL Technical Staff, Zack Lau, W1VT, is quite intelligent
and very responsive; but he can hardly carry the world, which he tries to do,
with a limited budget.
The peer review feature seems to have settled into various specialty groups;
EMI, Bonding; Antennas; etc., but is ultimately headed to handbooks in the
tradition of Orr from back in the day.
Many of the brightest - Maxwell, Straw, Phil Salas- turned to articles; the
brightest - LB Cebik, Roy Lewellyn, Jim Brown, Rudy Severns, Dan Maguire, Ward
Harriman, Steve Hunt, Larry Benko, Owen Duffy, and a host of others of all
turned to self-publication aided by the internet, with experts like Ed Hare and
others with reports on their specialty area efforts.
We are also blessed with active participants on various and specific
reflectors, like Jim Lux, Ed Hare, Dave Eckhardt and so many others. The
Elecrafters Group, RFI Group, TowerTalk, Sark-100, VNA, VNWA, SimSmith, and
other groups (too many great ones to mention) as well as specialty focus
groups, like the offspring of Serge Stroobandt offer technically-supported
info. We are so fortunate for that!!
Unfortunately, many of these and other “expert-founded” groups became
infiltrated with guys grinding their own axes or pimping the stuff made by
their various employers - some so outspoken they were banished from their
forums or put under house arrest until they saw the error of their ways.
Others blow smoke incessantly and haven’t a technical clue, and even more
ridiculously refuse to accept technical facts or observations without
ridiculing the input and the party making the the suggestion! Sadly, many who
read their stuff also drink their Kool-Aid.
But, the good news is that eventually the drinkers will later learn and revel
at having learned something beyond why 492/f isn’t 468/f and maybe even why.
Antennas and Baluns seem to attract a particularly opinionated lot. Solar Power
and such are right behind!
But there we are!
Magazines CQ and 73 and Ham Radio had pizazz in their day, but they had no peer
review of technical articles; the magazines were mostly scrambling for
advertising. (Although I built my first G4ZU triband beam from a CQ article,
buying into Byrd early in, and firing up my Heathkit 6146 rig in the best
sunspot cycle I can recall.) I will also admit to later having bought as my
first car a Porsche 365 after Wayne Green (W2NeverSayDie) extolled the car’s
virtues and its pizazz!
I fear RSGB has taken the same tack as ARRL in certain areas, and is written
more about camaraderie (nothing wrong with that, by the way, especially when it
is pleasant and welcoming and not “my way or the highway,” or “your technical
suggestion is crap,” etc., which one occasionally encounters) than well
referenced technology-based articles. This is especially true in the review of
new products; less so in certain technical areas.
(If I didn’t list someone’s favorite ham author, please accept my apology.)
But it’s hard to avoid the fact that the internet has spawned thousands of
authors, hundreds of self-appointed “experts”, and many readers confused by bum
dope, myths, and kool-aid of many flavors. And the line between legitimate and
earnest hobbyists and those with commercial interests has blurred.
Today’s port in the storm is probably QEX, to which others have testified, and
to which I am devoted. The Contesting Journal occasionally carries technical
gems as well.
Let’s hear it for ARRL for making both QEX and NCJ widely available digitally!!
I will confess a version bias: I had the honor of studying under Lan Jen Chu at
MIT (years after his work on the Wheeler-Chu matter).
His insistence that I help design a feed for the for the spherical reflector at
Arecibo volcano floor led me to fully grasp the difference between a point
source at the focus of a paraboloid and the three dimensional phased focus in
front of a spheroid required to generate a plane wave out the door!
Hence I will admit to being outrageously technically biased.
But back in the day, at age 13, QST, CQ, and 73 spoke to me.
But not to beat the horse, I send my best from the west to you all, and wish
you year end holiday greetings.
Ed McCann
AG6CX
Sausalito CA
> On Dec 21, 2022, at 4:06 AM, Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
> I have grown a LOT since the days in the 1960s when I saw QST as holding
> tremendous articles that helped me learn. QST was just perfect for me as an
> "average" ham back then. It still is. But Jim, you and I are not average
> hams. We have grown to the point where the articles that were so exciting to
> us when we were learning may interest us less now. If QST had evolved to
> follow my progress in learning about amateur radio, it would be way over the
> heads of the average reader we once were.
>
> I also noticed another phenomenon. I was remembering the best of the best of
> those old articles, and projecting that "best" back onto the entire era. I
> went into the ARRL Library and looked at older issues and noticed that yes,
> the best of the best where there, but so were some articles that, with
> today's eyes, looked pretty ho-hum to me. As I flipped through the issues,
> there were a few that taught me nothing new.
>
> Your premise that QST is edited by non-technical editors is just plain wrong.
> If you had looked at the QST masthead you would have seen the it contracts
> three exceptionally competent technical editors, engineers all, with some
> pretty significant accomplishments in their careers and within amateur radio.
> It is incorrect to make the claim that you made, inappropriate and
> disrespectful to the organization and the three very competent editors who
> put a lot into ensuring that QST is technically correct. The staff editors
> also have access to the ARRL Laboratory staff, with world-class expertise in
> things like RFI and equipment testing. The editors also maintain a cadre of
> volunteer technical advisors that offer input as needed in their specific
> areas of expertise.
>
> QST is a membership journal, and other than a few columns, consists of
> articles submitted by members. These, too, are subject to technical review,
> by the Lab staff and that cadre of technical advisors. The League can only
> publish what it receives, and although the editors, especially the three
> technical editors, do shake the bushes to find good authors, but if those
> that can write articles (or criticize the articles that are actually
> submitted...) don't actually send them in for consideration, what the critics
> think should be in the magazine won't appear in the magazine.
>
> I think that QST is essentially doing now what it did in the "good old days,"
> and that is to appeal to the average ham and his or her current interests.
> If hams aren't designing and building new projects now, the articles won't be
> submitted and thus won't appear in QST. It's that simple. And if hams
> aren't designing and building as many projects now, then a smaller number of
> today's hams want to build their own equipment, so the range of incoming
> articles is one sample of what the staff editors can use to judge what
> amateurs are interested in.
>
> So, Jim, it's not as simple as you seem to be conceiving it to be, and not
> nearly as bleak as you put it forward to be. It is just that you and I have
> grown past what QST needs to continue to be -- a membership journal that is
> useful to the average ham in finding things he or she can do within amateur
> radio.
>
> I am not a member because of QST. I am a member to support ARRL's work in
> advocacy, participation in industry committees, interface with the FCC, its
> programs of outreach to teachers to bring amateur radio into classrooms and a
> host of other things that go way past what is put into a general-interest
> magazine. The League spends real money to make all that happen and the only
> reason you have seen me participating strongly in IEEE standards work is that
> 160,000 hams chipped in to make it happen. I am glad that QST will help new
> hams, the same way it helped me when I was an inexperienced newbie.
>
> I felt compelled to respond to correct the out-and-out inaccuracies in some
> of what you had to say, Jim, but I also note that this is an email list about
> RFI, and that continuing this discussion should not continue here.
>
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
> ARRL Lab Manager
>
> ________________________________
> From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> on behalf of Jim Brown
> <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 11:10 PM
> To: rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFI] "LED noise"
>
> Dave,
>
> You and I are old enough to remember when QST was edited b active hams
> who were technically competent. A typical issue had several articles
> about things you could build, and they worked. It's been quite different
> since I got back on the air in 2003. QST is edited by "magazine" people,
> and last I heard, there was no review by anyone who was technically
> competent. Ward Silver, N0AX, who has edited the Handbook and Antenna
> Book for more than ten years, and written the Grounding and Bonding
> book, had a column that was the only thing in most issues you could
> count on as being solid science. Ward retired from that column several
> years ago. George Wallner, AA7JV, wrote a great piece on an easy to
> build vertical Yagi. Several years ago, there was a good piece on RF
> absorption in dense forests. Other than a few examples like those, it's
> been pretty slim pickings. And I see stuff that causes me to cringe in
> almost every issue that I take the time to skim.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On 12/20/2022 7:20 PM, David Eckhardt wrote:
>> Well......... Compare the present QST with those of some 2 or three
>> decades ago. Nothing but pablum in the recent issues.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|